4 ms·

This is probably one reason why the US republican party refuses to provide the necessary economic stimulus payments--they don't want the masses to get a taste o

This is probably one reason why the US republican party refuses to provide the necessary economic stimulus payments--they don't want the masses to get a taste of a kinder, more just society.

google234123 6y ago
They also don't want to start a new welfare program that would cost trillions a year...
- sanp 6y ago
  Yes. They would prefer to spend those trillions on "War on X" and bailing out constituents who vote for them...
  - catsdanxe 6y ago
    God those awful Republicans and their wars. Too bad the current democratic presidential candidate was the person that drummed up support for the invasion of iraq. How awful it would be if you could watch videos of him doing such...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - netsharc 6y ago
    How about actual war? The US military is a socialist wet dream: decent wage, housing, grants for education, life-long healthcare even after you're retired. Just as long as you're willing to risk bullets or IED, the government will take care of you!
- thebean11 6y ago
  You're right, but it seems a little hypocritical since they have no problem giving money to large corporations and "small businesses". Helicopter money also stimulates the economy.
- diob 6y ago
  It's actually the fiscally conservative thing to do. Every study around social programs show they grow the economy more than they cost it. But it's hard to get folks to release their "crabs in a bucket" mentality.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > It's actually the fiscally conservative thing to do. Every study around social programs show they grow the economy more than they cost it. The idea that government spending somehow manages to pay itself back is the complete opposite of fiscal conservatism, at least in my understanding.
    - diob 6y ago
      Yes, you're correct that most fiscal conservatives often go down the naive and overly simplistic route of proclaiming "all spending bad". But that's why people need to take a critical look at things. It's not about the short term, but the long term. Taking care of the populace is akin to investing. Do fiscal conservatives think there is a finite amount of wealth? I'd wager that most don't. Otherwise they'd more inclined to socialism or communism, possibly clamoring to "eat the rich". From there, one can start thinking about "how is wealth created?" and realize that social programs lead to more wealth creation in the long term. Sure, we spend money now to help that kid eat a warm meal or receive a better education, but 10 years from now he'll contribute back far more wealth than was spent. Perhaps they become a doctor, saving countless lives (each of which also contribute to "wealth" in their own way). Or perhaps they become an inventor, an engineer? Who knows, but studies have shown that social programs do, in fact, pay off. So yes, in the immediate it isn't "fiscally conservative" according to some narrow and overly strict definition, but in the long term it is fiscally conservative. Social programs are an investment in humanity's future, and they end up paying numerous dividends in the long run. Wealth, health, community, happiness, progress. What's not to love?
- jlisam13 6y ago
  Actually it won't cost that much if yout have the proper way of paying for it. If we implement a VAT like Andrew Yang's proposal, you can pay for it. Also you have to think how much we waste right now with current welfare and the productivity gains we will get if people have a reliable basic income.
pkaye 6y ago
Just call it a subsidy.
netsharc 6y ago
Didn't they do this in April? After decades of saying "No handouts!", it was suddenly possible! Because the alternative was riots and maybe a November massacre...

This is probably one reason why the US republican party refuses to provide the necessary economic stimulus payments--they don't want the masses to get a taste of a kinder, more just society.

google234123 6y ago

They also don't want to start a new welfare program that would cost trillions a year...

sanp 6y ago
Yes. They would prefer to spend those trillions on "War on X" and bailing out constituents who vote for them...
- catsdanxe 6y ago
  God those awful Republicans and their wars. Too bad the current democratic presidential candidate was the person that drummed up support for the invasion of iraq. How awful it would be if you could watch videos of him doing such...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- netsharc 6y ago
  How about actual war? The US military is a socialist wet dream: decent wage, housing, grants for education, life-long healthcare even after you're retired. Just as long as you're willing to risk bullets or IED, the government will take care of you!
thebean11 6y ago
You're right, but it seems a little hypocritical since they have no problem giving money to large corporations and "small businesses". Helicopter money also stimulates the economy.
diob 6y ago
It's actually the fiscally conservative thing to do. Every study around social programs show they grow the economy more than they cost it. But it's hard to get folks to release their "crabs in a bucket" mentality.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > It's actually the fiscally conservative thing to do. Every study around social programs show they grow the economy more than they cost it. The idea that government spending somehow manages to pay itself back is the complete opposite of fiscal conservatism, at least in my understanding.
  - diob 6y ago
    Yes, you're correct that most fiscal conservatives often go down the naive and overly simplistic route of proclaiming "all spending bad". But that's why people need to take a critical look at things. It's not about the short term, but the long term. Taking care of the populace is akin to investing. Do fiscal conservatives think there is a finite amount of wealth? I'd wager that most don't. Otherwise they'd more inclined to socialism or communism, possibly clamoring to "eat the rich". From there, one can start thinking about "how is wealth created?" and realize that social programs lead to more wealth creation in the long term. Sure, we spend money now to help that kid eat a warm meal or receive a better education, but 10 years from now he'll contribute back far more wealth than was spent. Perhaps they become a doctor, saving countless lives (each of which also contribute to "wealth" in their own way). Or perhaps they become an inventor, an engineer? Who knows, but studies have shown that social programs do, in fact, pay off. So yes, in the immediate it isn't "fiscally conservative" according to some narrow and overly strict definition, but in the long term it is fiscally conservative. Social programs are an investment in humanity's future, and they end up paying numerous dividends in the long run. Wealth, health, community, happiness, progress. What's not to love?
jlisam13 6y ago
Actually it won't cost that much if yout have the proper way of paying for it. If we implement a VAT like Andrew Yang's proposal, you can pay for it. Also you have to think how much we waste right now with current welfare and the productivity gains we will get if people have a reliable basic income.

pkaye 6y ago

Just call it a subsidy.

netsharc 6y ago

Didn't they do this in April? After decades of saying "No handouts!", it was suddenly possible! Because the alternative was riots and maybe a November massacre...